Troops call could eclipse health care

Just when President Barack Obama has got Congress focused on health care again, Afghanistan keeps pulling him back in.

With a $629.6 billion defense bill heading for the Senate floor, Washington woke up to headlines Monday warning of “mission failure” if more U.S. troops aren’t committed to battle the Taliban.

Story Continued Below

Arizona Sen. John McCain, the president’s former Republican rival, demanded that the war’s top brass be called “immediately” to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee. And down the line, the next 12 months in Afghanistan — running up to the 2010 elections here at home — are being hailed as pivotal.

Obama himself remains cautious about committing more U.S. troops, but for months now, there has been a steady drumbeat of reports from those close to the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, that significantly more troops are needed beyond the 21,000 increase approved by the president in February. Monday’s Washington Post, revealing excerpts of McChrystal’s 66-page assessment, capped this campaign and confirmed what some in Congress see as at least “daylight” between the McChrystal camp in the military and the National Security Council team advising Obama.

By Monday night, Republicans had jumped in aggressively, with House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) echoing McCain’s demands for public testimony from McChrystal and Gen. David Petraeus, who leads the U.S. Central Command overseeing military operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Further delay in the decision to send the needed additional forces would endanger the lives of the 68,000 men and women currently serving in Afghanistan,” McCain said. Added Boehner: “The longer we wait, the more we put our troops at risk.”

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) did not immediately respond to McCain’s demands, preferring in his statement to focus on McChrystal’s calls for a significant change in the U.S. strategy — not simply more soldiers and Marines. But the aggressive tone taken by Republicans appeared aimed at two goals.